RAVE, RAVE against the lying of the Right!

UPDATE: Kampen defends himself—and you

The good news: the ClimateNuremberg community has—with only a few unedifying exceptions—read and responded to climate cognitologist C. R. R. Kampen’s comments (highlighted in this post) in exactly the nuanced and pro-science spirit we at CN hoped.

So we want to thank you, our readers!

The bad news: it seems one or more corners of the opposite, science-skeptical hemiclimatosphere have been rather less reasonable. Apparently, aspects of Kampen’s remarks have been mined, twisted and slandered by the usual ‘forces‘ (for whom human survival is evidently negotiable).

I use trolls sometimes to make points for others, and I wished to make a point yesterday. I quit direct response yesterday anyway.

At some point I sit back watching the troll undo himself during a rattle of increasing incoherent posts, my job done once more – I pull back the moment he needs me

…

“Is there a psychological label for those that ideate/hope for thousands of deaths for the greater good? other than arsehole [asshole —CN editors]/climate arsehole [asshole —CN editors]?”

Climate revisionist [denialist —CN editors].

OUCH.

I have no idea which of the usual suspects was the “troll” but it must have wished it had picked a different billy goat. You almost have to feel sorry for the scientist-doubting forces when someone of Kampen’s calibre finally snaps… and hits back.

Post navigation

41 thoughts on “UPDATE: Kampen defends himself—and you”

“I use trolls sometimes” … “watching the troll undo himself”… “I pull back the moment he needs me”
What? Are we all talking about the same thing here? I wouldn’t’ve have posted that up as “Dr Kampen defends himself”, quite the contrary.

I hadn’t thought of that, or really spent much time considering the question in general. As a science communicator, not a scientist, I have to accept that I won’t always understand what the scientists who’ve studied their area for decades are actually saying.

So you may be right—perhaps Dr Kampen’s meaning is diametrically opposite to my mental model thereof?—and neither of us can really ever know.

Appreciate the candid admission that you are a “science communicator” Brad; you wouldn’t believe the number of people out on the blogs that claim to be “Scientists” when in actual fact their degree’s are in Population Ecology, Psychology, Journalism or, in some bizarre cases, even Zoology! 🙂

One thing I think is specifically not discussed in the IPCC reports is the appeal of “climate doom” as sexual fetish! Early on, back in the sixties, Paul Ehrlich realised that “getting off on it” and being paid for doing so, was about the most gratifying things he’d ever achieved.

I’m not psychologist [ as if that mattered 😉 ] but I think it’s the same for Dr Kampen, it’s not that he wants people to actually die (he probably couldn’t care less), its the “ideation of the prospect” that gives him the perverted sexual satisfaction he craves. I think this “ideation of megadeaths” in the climate debate deserves more study, perhaps Lewandowsky or some journalism student may fancy a go.

Hay Brad, you fucking douche bag. I am leaving all my lights on outside for you tonight. Tomorrow, I’ll be driving my diesel Ford F-250 4 wheel drive all day just for you. I think I’ll leave it idling when I’m not in it. Fuck you global warming assholes. Hopefully I get to meet your faggot ass in person someday.

I am grateful that CRR Kampen “pulls back” just when he thinks I might need him. He is a sensitive soul to be sure. Actually, I have never needed him but don’t say so in public for fear of upsetting the stupid bastard.

One thing I think is specifically not discussed in the IPCC reports is the appeal of “climate doom” as sexual fetish! Early on, back in the sixties, Paul Ehrlich realised that “getting off on it” and being paid for doing so, was about the most gratifying things he’d ever achieved.

Hey, like don’t knock till you’ve tried it. Personally I think it’s kinda beautiful. But then again, man, I never did get over the 1960s. 😉

“I hope against knowledge of her path, that Cyclone Ita will wipe Cairns off the map”

Then why stop there? People will surely take notice of further positive reinforcement of their climate performance? Why not Townsville, Gladstone, then Brisbane?

And why, in these days of supercomputers and sophisticated modeling, should any climate event be a mere act of chance? With the power of the carbon tax, combined with the scientific and intellectual horsepower at the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, Climate Scientists should be able to “call the shots”, as it were, bringing the required level of Armageddon to those sinful cities which fail to show the approved degrees of repentence and remorse.

In the future, weather reports could start with a hymn to gaia, followed by a lengthy tract from the IPCC, then a fire and brimstone sermon on the evils of civilisation. As the collection plate comes around, (credit card accepted, of course), the alphabetical list of cities, crimes and casualties is flashed across the screen to spur the public to greater sacrifice…

Check whether the message came across.
E.g. New York does not seem to need another Sandy, or Central-Europe does not seem to need a third ‘Milleniumhochwasser’ like the two of this century (2002 and 2013).
You may place bets on Somerset, Britain.

Prof. Kampen,
Your original wish for Cairns to be destroyed seems to have upset some people but I don’t think they can follow your logic even though it raises ethical questions. I tried to get ethical guidance from Prof. Bardi and the other “climate concerned” and posted the following at http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/04/climate-of-intimidation-frontiers.html. However he does not appear to be interested. Wonder if anyone visiting this thread could help

Prof.Bardi,
I apologise if I gave the impression that I was trying to be “funny”. I am not very clear in my thinking and was hoping to get ethical guidance from you and the other people concerned about climate who visit this blog. My understanding is as follows.
Deniers are evil, anti-science, suffer from various psychological disorders and are only interested in serving their paymasters to perpetuate capitalism – 97% of scientists say so. The climate concerned are trying, each in their different way, to fight climate change. However, global, concerted action on a massive scale is needed to save the world from deniers as well as climate change. In that sense, I have some sympathy with Kampen’s views since a disaster might catalyse world opinion and bring about action. On the other hand it seems wrong that many people have to die. But I also understand that 97% of the scientists believe that climate change will bring about “resource wars”. I fear that these could be nuclear wars. Even this cloud has a silver lining in that it could take out 100s of millions of potential polluters and the nuclear winter might mitigate global warming. Yet on the other hand it somehow seems wrong that so many people should die. So is Kampen’s wish the lesser of the two evils ?

Well observed. In fact what I bring up is a variant on a classical philosophical-moral dilemma. The problem is the normal, and healthy, response which is to not accept the proposition at all, does not always seem to solve the dilemma.
A modern version is the so-called Trolley Dilemma, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem . It is hard to see how this one helps us out, though.

You’re right cRR, deniers just don’t seem to grasp that difficult decisions need to made and if a few thousand people need to die so that a world-wide emissions trading scheme/carbon tax can be put in place, then sobeit, the end justifies the means. We’re out of options otherwise.

Professor Kampen, I am not now nor have I ever been a Climate Denier, but it occurs to me that perhaps the answer to our particular “TROLLEY PROBLEM” is to step out of its way (metaphorically speaking, of course)?

I always say THE BEST WAY TO START A CONVERSATION IS TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE, denying the Denialists the OXYGEN OF PUBLICITY??? There is considerable evidence that we have been somewhat successful in this respect. I agree that if we wish to Save the Planet we must be prepared to think the unthinkable, but there is more that can be done before we have no choice but to think – and eventually do – the unthinkable.

For example, back in the day the British Government made the BBC substitute silly voices for IRA spokespersonages. This alone brought the IRA to its knees, leading eventually to the Peace Process and the Peace (albeit an uneasy one) that exists in Northern Ireland today. With today’s technology we could go much further in this direction, using the latest autotuning technology to make Climate Denialists sound like Mickey Mouse (or Minnie Mouse – I’m no sexist) whenever they appeared on TV or Radio. Let me know what you think: COULD THIS WORK, OR AM I OFF MY TROLLEY???

That sort of thing was effective back in the eighties, early nineties – today’s denierati have too much clout over the BBC, via the GWPF, for that idea to get any traction. There’s no way that in an unregulated UK you’ll ever stop the BBC achieving that false balance they’re so notorious for.

Nothing short of an outright ban of deniers and their repulsive views on any TV, radio or other media channel, by full act of parliament if need be, is going to cut it. We’ve done too much damage to the planet already – the anthropocene is upon us and we can’t turn back the clock. Cameron and Clegg are yesterdays men, what we need is leadership.

“I agree that if we wish to Save the Planet we must be prepared to think the unthinkable, but there is more that can be done before we have no choice but to think – and eventually do – the unthinkable.”

Agreed. So perhaps my shot for the bow recreates that choice.

“… to make Climate Denialists sound like Mickey Mouse” – Not so sure. I don’t think climate revisionists are in the same league as political terrorists. I find much wanting in their argumentation and have addressed this obliguely (by showing how they are -apparently- prepared to pay a much higher price than a single city), but in between and behind and below is a very diverse array of reasons to deny climate change (is human caused) and many of these reasons are not really that ‘unreasonable’. What they surely are, is: hard to address, and those deniers are not making it easy to address them.

” a very diverse array of reasons to deny climate change (is human caused) and many of these reasons are not really that ‘unreasonable’”

What difference does that make? Being a denier for reasons that aren’t unreasonable, is still being a Denier! That’s what they want you to think! If there were 3 doctors who expressed an opinion that didn’t sound ‘unreasonable’ as you put it – and then there were 97 others that said you were going to die in a few months because they actually new what they were talking about, who would believe? Denier’s coming out with reasons that ‘are not really that unreasonable’ is a trick, they’re paid to do it and you bought into it hook, line and sinker! What a mug.

KBO, vested interests, in this case in fact some of the largest of the world, will of course set up lobbies and disinformation campaigns.
Whatever you think of it, this is not ‘unreasonable’.
The resulting argumentation and the abuse of power over media, institutions and governments, however, often is. You can recognize the ferocity of my attack to be based on this, can’t you?
Of course, to deny AGW is, in itself, intrinsically as a simple statement, unreasonable. The dilemma I pose is devised to show this. Thank you for your help.

You started off with the proposition that decadent, right wing, western societies are unlikely to take action on Climate Change and unless Cairns (pop 150,000, an example I assume) is wiped off the map, and some people just don’t like it when strong people start telling them truths they don’t want to hear (it’s not going to win you friends).

Now, you’re saying that some of the Denierista’s so called “reasons” are “not really that ‘unreasonable’”, what the hell’s going on? You can’t say “let’s kill a few thousand people” in one breath and then say (paraphrasing) “oh but the other side makes some good points as well” .

You need to work out who’s side you on cRR, the Oil companies or humanity, you can’t sit on the fence and play both sides – humanity needs those deaths, a world-wide emissions trading scheme is dead in the water without them and you know it.

“Now, you’re saying that some of the Denier[politically loaded suffix snipped—CN Mods]s’ so called “reasons” are “not really that ‘unreasonable’””

That is an absurd claim a priori, because deniers are fundamentally unreasonable.

It’s possible that you are speaking to someone who does not follow SkepticalScience and is simply speaking what they believe to be standard, dictionary English.

All current dictionaries contain an error whereby “denier” is defined simply as “one who denies.”

This widespread error has been corrected online, but the universities that produce our printed dictionaries, the so-called prestige dictionaries, have not yet incorporated the correction.

Let me quote Dr John Cook, the academic who first proposed the correct definition:

“…Consider the following definitions.
Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth.Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views…“

Simply correct your interlocutor and he or she will understand why his or her sentence is logically unviable.

If he or she persists in saying such a sentence, he or she must be speaking in bad faith. Please report this to a CN Moderator.

KBO, I might go with the ‘decadent’ adjective, but my ‘target’ is definitely not merely right-wing people (or societies). It is, and has to be, all – at least those countries both contributing to the problem and best able to help solve it. My target includes, and has to include (as many commenters more or less recognized) my family, friends and even myself. As it happens I live in a place where an AGW hit could both come soon and be devastating.

“oh but the other side makes some good points as well” . – wait, I said ‘not unreasonable’ reasons. I meant ‘understandable’ reasons, even ‘rational’ reasons. I should add: I can understand why people (and capital) would deny CC.But I also explicitly stated those reasons are NOT ‘good points‘.
But I also explicitly stated those reasons do NOT yield ‘good points’.
All the more motive to confront them with some fire, which is what I attempt.

“.. humanity needs those deaths, a world-wide emissions trading scheme is dead in the water without them and you know it.” – Hope, KBO. Maybe this is hope against knowledge, but I would like humanity to be able to suffice with your and my strong warnings. The societal-future paradox: if enough of humanity understands it needs those fatalities then maybe humanity will strive in earnest to prevent them – and succeed in preventing them.

Note: if a hurricane ‘wipes out’ a western city (e.g. Darwin, 1974), it does not result in 150,000 dead (like Bangladesh) or even 8,500 (like Haiyan made).
I do not mention death tolls in my proposition, these I leave to the reader’s imagination, but privately the above is a relevant piece of my theme.

If there were only say 4,000 deaths I don’t think that would be enough. These days, 4,000 deaths would only get you a couple of days worth of “news concern” tops. If we’re going to get world leaders on board with an emission trading scheme, we’re going to need hundreds of thousands of deaths minimum from a weather disaster like you said at the beginning.

“Consider the following definitions.
Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth.
Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views.”

So, if I was genuinely sceptical about whether, say, God existed, and somebody showed me a photograph of him, and I didn’t accept it (because of my pre-determined view that God was unlikely to do photo opps), then, whereas I thought I was a sceptic, I would actually be a “Denier”?

I don’t think that can be right, at least it doesn’t really make any sense. The way you’ve phrased it, someone could package up any old crap with caveats all over the place, call it evidence, and if you didn’t accept it, you’d be a “Denier”[?] -the lowest of the low, worthy of scorn from even the most uneducated in our society.

This Professor Cook seems like one clued up cookie, what’s his background? literary expert, Nobel? FRS perhaps? can he do good drawings?

Anyway, whatever, this distraction you’ve invented to side track us from the real issues isn’t really helping much is it? It may all be a bit of fun for you and you can ridicule us ‘visionaries’ all you like, but that don’t mean squat. While you’re playing your games (here and on the other blogs I see) the planet is dying, never mind those poor unfortunates in Cairns, this affects all of us -THERE IS NO BACKUP VERSION OF THE EARTH WILL LIVE ON- its a one time only deal, don’t you get that?

K.K.K. Kampden, is a Climate hero, a true Champion of ‘Climate Justice’, deniers should take heed of his unwavering faith in the face of a mere lack of empirical evidence and the sacrifice’s that he will make to back his creed.
Being Dutch, he hopes (Im sure) that his Nation is obliterated under rising seas if it is to wake up the ignorant and make the faithless heretics who chant for ‘evidence’, recant and smite the quislings of BIg Oil, just as was hoped for in the ‘Destruction of Cairns’.
After all, whats the ruin of one nation, a small flat muddy one at that, compared to the heroic task of “Saving a Planet” from that vile agent of Big Oil, that sinister trace compound that cleverly masks itself as a benign trace gas and plant food but is in reality the sleeper agent of DESTRUCTION …. the most powerful force ever unleashed by mankind’s hubris, greed and ignorance – Carbon “WMD” DiOxide !!!!!
This uber, mega powerful climate driver had been trapped by Gaia’s forces of goodness to save the eco natural environment and just as St Michael imprisoned Satan in the underworld, so she forced the carbon Compound to lie dormant in dirty fossil fuels for eons, only to have the forces of evil (man) unleash carbon fury, to reek havoc on the planet as it is re-reeased and entrenches itself back into the atmosphere by our greedy and unnatural ecokilling desires to have energy to live warm, health, long and happy lives.
Kampden and many of His countrymen and other visionaries have seen the future and ‘its back there’, in the pre-Industrial age, again using windmills and animal and human muscle glucose to power their imagination of the coming Eden !

REPLY: So you’d wish death and destruction on people just to prove your point? What a schmuck. Get the off my blog PERMANENTLY. We don’t cater to sadists here, and after many warnings, I’m done with you. GET OUT. – Anthony Watts”

Yes, wsg, he sure has been banned from such places as where they feel ‘free speech’ is hampered (go figure). Same thing with Bob ‘Drivel’ Tisdale. So? I think Sandy 1.0 was a resounding succes. For a fraction of the damage that system did New Jersey and New York are finally going to invest in sea defenses.
So I wish for no Irene or Sandy on these states again. I do wish the Sandy at 910 hPa on, e.g., the Carolina’s. Better this year than in 2025 because that Sandy will strike at 880 hPa.
Watts is the sadist.

On the ‘free speech’ issue, when someone gets banned from a blog, I don’t see it as a good thing (for the blog). There are two scenarios though A) when someone is actually making a point and arguing against the “wind of belief” of whatever side, and B) idiotic outbursts intended to shock or offend. Your “Drivel, drivel, drivel – hoping for Sandy 2.0 at 910 hPa ;)” [wishing death and destruction on people to prove your point] is firmly in category B.

So I’m right behind you on your right to “free speech”- it’s a matter for your conscience that you chose to exercise it to wish death and destruction on people, and with a smiley at that.

” I do wish the Sandy at 910 hPa on, e.g., the Carolina’s. Better this year than in 2025 because that Sandy will strike at 880 hPa.”

You just don’t stop do you? More hoped for death & destruction to achieve some dubious poltical goal. It’s nutters like you that put the “C” in CAGW. Where does the 880hPa in 2025 come from? Is this another “Catastrophic” prediction that some looney has decided to arbitrarily attach a number to, or do you actually have some peer reviewed study you can quote?

So I’m right behind you on your right to “free speech”- it’s a matter for your conscience that you chose to exercise it to wish death and destruction on people, and with a smiley at that.

So you admit that PROFESSOR KAMPEN USED A SMILEY, but then you blithely IGNORE THAT FACT??? What’s up with that?

You just don’t stop do you? More hoped for death & destruction to achieve some dubious poltical goal.

See what I mean?!! WHAT PART OF “PROFESSOR KAMPEN USED A SMILEY” DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???

It’s nutters like you that put the “C” in CAGW.

“CAGW” How typical of denialists to use derogatory terms, such as “nutter”, when struggling to make their case. As for CAGW, it’s just one of those gnuspeak acronyms, made up by denialists who would rather we stuck our collective head in the sand, like a gnu, than face up to the Truth About Climate Change. We all put the C in Global Warming, but only YOU DENIALISTS PUT THE C IN CAGW.

I hope you don’t just think I’m looking to find fault in everything cRR. The problem was not your use of the word “drivel”, it was the death and destruction to further a political agenda that was, and still is, the problem -something you don’t seem to be able to grasp.

From your response, I have in mind you’re parsing the ““Drivel, drivel, drivel – hoping for Sandy 2.0 at 910 hPa ;)” and scratching your head thinking, “whats wrong with that? maybe if I hadn’t said drivel and it would have been ok”, well you’re wrong.

Any update on the source of your catastrophic prediction?:
“Better this year than in 2025 because that Sandy will strike at 880 hPa.”

The reason I ask is a lot of people just make stuff up becauses it suits. if there’s more substance to it than “There will be a mighty wind, the End is Nigh” let me know.

WSG: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/ .
Study the graph, compare the numbers of events with and without trend (to understand that increasing population & property is filtered out). Source is the world’s second largest insurer (MunichRE) who keeps -the- world database of natural disasters.

When I confronted Bob ‘Drivel’ Tisdale with my Sandy 910 hPa, items like the strongest Indian Ocean cyclone (Phailin), worst Somalia landfalling cyclone, worst Cambodian landfalling cyclone and to top it all Typhoon Haiyan still had to happen (all did so last year). My observation is these were hoped for by Bob ‘Drivel’ Tisdale (and other climate revisionists). All I’m doing is speaking out that wish. I grant Tisdale et irk his projection of ‘alarmism’ on me just to show what that projection really means.

K.K.K camden again smites deniers by pointing out the incidence of localised weather extremes in a globally warming world.
It is undeniable proof of the havoc of mankind’s utilisation of fossil fuels.
Deniers try to discredit extreme weather as a local event but they don’t comprehend that CO2 dark properties allow its sinisterly harness its wrath at the one location at the one time, whilst elsewhere and at other times, seemingly ordinary weather prevails.

Deniers try to discredit extreme weather as a local event but they don’t comprehend that CO2 dark properties allow its sinisterly harness its wrath at the one location at the one time, whilst elsewhere and at other times, seemingly ordinary weather prevails.

I like the way you hint at carbon dioxide unleashing unspeakably dark, animistic forces without saying so in so many words; so denying the denialists an opportunity to fabricate yet another Debunked Denialist Talking Point while performed an act of Science Communication that will be understood by many of those who are inexplicably immune to the siren call of The Science. I salute you, sir!

Let the denialists continue to flood every web forum with facts and figures cunningly culled from the official records and the IPCC reports, as if such transparent use of argument from authority could fool anyone. Denialists imagine the devil is in the detail, but we know “THE DEVIL IS IN THE DIOXIDE”.